Bad choices (mission, conservative)

[Pah]

You may already have heard that Gov. Mark Sanford doesn’t like the stronger seat-belt bill that recently passed the S.C. Senate

.

“Bad choices — whether getting too much sun, eating too much of the wrong things or smoking — cause people to hurt themselves. ... Ultimately, though, in a free world I believe people should be able to do things that are both stupid and inherently self-destructive provided the harm only comes to them — and they are not directly harming another person.”

Should "stupidity" be an issue for freedom?

[retrorich]

Originally Posted by pah

. Should "stupidity" be an issue for freedom?

“Bad choices — whether getting too much sun, eating too much of the wrong things or smoking — cause people to hurt themselves. ... Ultimately, though, in a free world I believe people should be able to do things that are both stupid and inherently self-destructive provided the harm only comes to them — and they are not directly harming another person.”

You may already have heard that Gov. Mark Sanford doesn’t like the stronger seat-belt bill that recently passed the S.C. Senate


I basically agree with the above quotes. I always wear a seat belt and insist that anyone riding in my car do the same. But if an adult driving his/her own car chooses not you use a seat belt, that is none of my (or the government's) business. It is the law that children under a certain age or weight must wear seat belts at all times, and that is a good law.

Airbags are another issue. I believe that airbags are an excellent idea in high-speed interstate driving, but can actually be more of a hazard then a help in stop-and-go city driving. I went to a great deal of trouble to obtain permission from the federal government to have an on-off airbag switch installed in my car. When I finally received written permission, I discovered that no on in my area would install the switch. I guess they are afraid of being sued.

On the other hand, I believe that using a hand-held cell phone while driving should be illegal, because doing so represents a hazard to others.

[meogi]

I had no idea stupid and self-destructive things were mutual... but either way, I agree that things that bring no harm to others (physical or emotional, which definitely complicates things) should not be denied to people who want to do them.

[michel]

PART QUOTE=Rich[I basically agree with the above quotes. I always wear a seat belt and insist that anyone riding in my car do the same. But if an adult driving his/her own car chooses not you use a seat belt, that is none of my (or the government's) business.]

What about the poor paramedic ? What if, as a result of his action of not wearing a seat belt, the adult becomes totally dependent on society ? - Does he not have a duty to avoid the results of his actions?

[w00t]

The seatbelt law is strictly enforced in the UK, you have to belt up both in the back and front of the car. Passengers are less likely to be seriously injured if they are restrained, and less of a cost to the public purse should medical treatment be required after an accident. Under our National Health Scheme health care is free at point of need.

[retrorich]

Originally Posted by michel

PART QUOTE=Rich[I basically agree with the above quotes. I always wear a seat belt and insist that anyone riding in my car do the same. But if an adult driving his/her own car chooses not you use a seat belt, that is none of my (or the government's) business.]

What about the poor paramedic ?

What about the poor paramedic? He/she is simply doing the job he/she makes a living by doing.

What if, as a result of his action of not wearing a seat belt, the adult becomes totally dependent on society ? - Does he not have a duty to avoid the results of his actions?

Seat belts can increase injuries as well as lessening them.

As for "society" (the government?) being responsible for people, that doesn't happen in the U.S.A. to anywhere near the extent it does in England. And with the conservative Republicans in charge, that isn't likely to change soon.

If you start making laws against actions that endanger the individuals performing the actions, but not others, where do you stop? Laws against overeating, not exercising, consuming alcohol, smoking, sky-diving, skiing, etc.? Isn't "society" at least partially responsible for people who are "injured" through those activities?

[w00t]

Laws against smoking in public should certainly be brought in, the smoker damages the health of those around him/her.

[johnnys4life]

If they are going to do it they should at least be warned of the risks, and be darned sure it DOESN'T hurt another person.

[Scorn]

Originally Posted by retrorich

If you start making laws against actions that endanger the individuals performing the actions, but not others, where do you stop? Laws against overeating, not exercising, consuming alcohol, smoking, sky-diving, skiing, etc.? Isn't "society" at least partially responsible for people who are "injured" through those activities?

Good point rich. However a seatbelt law is enforceable. At least to some degree.



And if one doesn't think it has a direct cost on the taxpayers you're fooling yourself. As does all these other things that rich listed above - agreed (perhaps skiing and skydiving not so much). But if lawmakers can chip away at these things bit by bit perhaps we can defray the cost burden over time. Also detrimental activities like smoking, obesity, alcohol and exercise do cost money to the taxpayers. One way or another all of us pay for the bad habits of individuals. Whether it's in healthcare (like here in Canada) or in state sponsored programs designed to curb the abuse. One way or another we pay

[anders]

Originally Posted by Tangnefedd

The seatbelt law is strictly enforced in the UK, you have to belt up both in the back and front of the car. Passengers are less likely to be seriously injured if they are restrained, and less of a cost to the public purse should medical treatment be required after an accident. Under our National Health Scheme health care is free at point of need.

I completely agree with the compulsory use of belts. To make the issue less threatening, there has been a switch in Sweden from using "safety belts" to "car belts".

The British NHS scheme is great. I have had to use it once when visiting the UK. No problems, despite being a foreigner (and way before the creation of the EU), and cheap at that. NZ, and perhaps Aussies, maybe even Canadians come close, I think, like Sweden. The US health non-care system is one of the many things that make me very happy I'm not living there. Or, putting it differently, having a non-US system in Sweden probably explains why I'm alive today.

<edit> Hey, Tagnefedd, that UK physician was in Wales. Lovely country!